4 ms·

> Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that publi

> Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Many people I know who live and work and pay taxes in Atlanta cycle and drive, depending on where they're going. Are you really suggesting auto-drivers are more important citizens whose convenience matters more than the safety of others? Should Atlanta also start de-prioritizing safe sidewalks and crosswalks so people who are walking all over Midtown and downtown don't inconvenience the drivers? Suggesting the many people who aren't traveling along on 4 or more wheels should be ignored for the sake of convenience to those who are seems awfully silly.

rayiner 8y ago
I'm suggesting that it's not right to inconvenience the majority (drivers), for the sake of a relatively privileged minority (folks who can afford to live within cycling distance of their jobs downtown).
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Before going too far down the road with this argument, you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible. The majority is not necessarily the majority by choice in this case.
  - wozniacki 8y ago
    It also is useful to bear in mind how small a slice of the larger society people who frequent HN represent. It is easy to get carried away with these hyper arguments in favor of public transit, bicycling everywhere and for everyone, high density living and removing parking wherever possible. It is helpful to bear in mind that just because a small canal-ridden city of 800,000 people ( Amsterdam has an area of 85 square miles while even NYC is 302 and Chicago is 234 ) has a high density of cyclists doesn't mean we shape policy for much of the Western world based on that small city of homogeneous people with homogeneous values and neighborhoods.
  - u801e 8y ago
    > you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible. The one thing that debunks that argument is the fact that people aren't replacing their cars with motorcycles.
wozniacki 8y ago
Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Then, would you be not opposed to requiring bicycles to be registered, bicyclists to be licensed & taxed just like cars & vehicular traffic does? If you want a lane all to yourself isn't only fair that you pay your fair share toward the building, maintenance and repair of the lanes? Why should you get to use them free of cost?
- zymhan 8y ago
  We do pay our fair share, over half of the road funding in Georgia comes from general revenue, i.e. taxes everyone pays regardless of vehicle. Don't act like my bike puts as much wear and tear on the road as your 3 ton SUV or the 18-wheelers and delivery trucks.
- megaremote 8y ago
  You are delusional, as a car driver you are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure paid for by cyclists. When are you going to start paying for what you use? That is why I love toll roads so much, for once car drivers almost pay their way. You still don't pay for the pollution you cause, or the damage to do killing people.

rayiner 8y ago

I'm suggesting that it's not right to inconvenience the majority (drivers), for the sake of a relatively privileged minority (folks who can afford to live within cycling distance of their jobs downtown).

wool_gather 8y ago
Before going too far down the road with this argument, you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible. The majority is not necessarily the majority by choice in this case.
- wozniacki 8y ago
  It also is useful to bear in mind how small a slice of the larger society people who frequent HN represent. It is easy to get carried away with these hyper arguments in favor of public transit, bicycling everywhere and for everyone, high density living and removing parking wherever possible. It is helpful to bear in mind that just because a small canal-ridden city of 800,000 people ( Amsterdam has an area of 85 square miles while even NYC is 302 and Chicago is 234 ) has a high density of cyclists doesn't mean we shape policy for much of the Western world based on that small city of homogeneous people with homogeneous values and neighborhoods.
- u801e 8y ago
  > you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible. The one thing that debunks that argument is the fact that people aren't replacing their cars with motorcycles.

wozniacki 8y ago

Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Then, would you be not opposed to requiring bicycles to be registered, bicyclists to be licensed & taxed just like cars & vehicular traffic does? If you want a lane all to yourself isn't only fair that you pay your fair share toward the building, maintenance and repair of the lanes? Why should you get to use them free of cost?

zymhan 8y ago
We do pay our fair share, over half of the road funding in Georgia comes from general revenue, i.e. taxes everyone pays regardless of vehicle. Don't act like my bike puts as much wear and tear on the road as your 3 ton SUV or the 18-wheelers and delivery trucks.
megaremote 8y ago
You are delusional, as a car driver you are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure paid for by cyclists. When are you going to start paying for what you use? That is why I love toll roads so much, for once car drivers almost pay their way. You still don't pay for the pollution you cause, or the damage to do killing people.